From: ichimal@...
Date: 2003-02-04T23:07:04+09:00
Subject: Re: Local variables & blocks

Hi,

In message "Re: Local variables & blocks"
    on 03/02/04, matz writes:

>|Points are below:
>|    (*) first-class object,
>|    (*) not as false, at least,
>|    (*) to check equivalency is supported;
>|        (**) ==, != and nonInit? methods may be defined.
>
>But why this is needed in addition to false and nil?  That's my point.
>Scheme has #f and #<unspecified>, Ruby has false and nil.

  In Scheme, unspecific value is just (implement depend) unspecific value.
#<unspecified> as virtual unspecific value in scm is also just
#<unspecified>. This is point. There is no additional meaning s.t. false.

  I thought,
  (a) separate false meaning from nil,
or
  (b) to change "nil is just false".

And, I propsed (b) but you said this is policy matter, so I had withdrawn
it. Ooops, I cannot explain these around with my poor English.

>What's wrong with that?

  Is it meaning that Scheme is just Scheme, Ruby is just Ruby?

>Did I?

  [63560]. Now I think you said "right" just for nil maybe, but I suspected
you said "right" for whole sentence at that time because you quoted whole
sentence and there is no negative opinion to anything.


Thanks.

----
1002.(ichimal)
SUZUKI Shingo